Psychological Research

, Volume 80, Issue 5, pp 821–837 | Cite as

The differential effects of fluency due to repetition and fluency due to color contrast on judgments of truth

  • Rita R. Silva
  • Teresa Garcia-Marques
  • Joana Mello
Original Article

Abstract

Two experiments contrast the effects of fluency due to repetition and fluency due to color contrast on judgments of truth, after participants learn to associate high levels of fluency with falseness (i.e., a reversal of the fluency–truth link). Experiment 1 shows that the interpretation of fluency as a sign of truth is harder to reverse when learning is promoted with repetition rather than with perceptual fluency. Experiment 2 shows that when color contrast and repetition are manipulated orthogonally, the reversal of the truth effect learned with color contrast does not generalize to repetition. These results suggest specificities in the processing experiences generated by different sources of fluency, and that their influences can be separated in contexts that allow the contrast of their distinctive features. We interpret and discuss these results in light of the research addressing the convergence vs. dissociation of the effects elicited by different fluency sources.

References

  1. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacon, F. T. (1979). Credibility of repeated statements: Memory for trivia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 241–252.Google Scholar
  3. Begg, I. M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 446–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Begg, I., & Armour, V. (1991). Repetition and the ring of truth: Biasing comments. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 23, 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 610–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coutanche, M. N., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). Reversal without remapping what we can (and cannot) conclude about learned associations from training-induced behavior changes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 118–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2009). Mix me a list: Context moderates the truth effect and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1117–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 238–257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Garcia-Marques, T., Silva, R. R., Reber, R., & Unkelbach, C. (2015). Hearing a statement now and believing the opposite later. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 126–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (2011). The recognition heuristic: A decade of research. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 100–121.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American psychologist, 46, 107–119.Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109, 75–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hansen, J., Dechêne, A., & Wänke, M. (2008). Discrepant fluency increases subjective truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 687–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herzog, S. M., & Hertwig, R. (2013). The ecological validity of fluency. In C. Unkelbach & R. Greifeneder (Eds.), The experience of thinking: How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behaviour (pp. 190–219). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelley, C. M., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lanska, M., Olds, J. M., & Westerman, D. L. (2014). Fluency effects in recognition memory: Are perceptual fluency and conceptual fluency interchangeable? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mandler, G., Nakamura, Y., & Van Zandt, B. J. (1987). Nonspecific effects of exposure on stimuli that cannot be recognized. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 646–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McGlone, M. S., & Tofighbakhsh, J. (2000). Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science, 11, 424–428.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, R. R., Barnet, R. C., & Grahame, N. J. (1995). Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner model. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 363–386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Olds, J. M., & Westerman, D. L. (2012). Can fluency be interpreted as novelty? Retraining the interpretation of fluency in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 653–664.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Parks, C. M., & Toth, J. P. (2006). Fluency, familiarity, aging, and the illusion of truth. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 13, 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 510–532.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 338–342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Reber, R., & Unkelbach, C. (2010). The epistemic status of fluency as source for judgments of truth. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 563–581.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Reber, R., Wurtz, P., & Zimmermann, T. D. (2004). Exploring “fringe” consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases. Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 47–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  32. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Topolinski, S. (2013). The sources of fluency: Identifying the underlying mechanisms of fluency effects. In C. Unkelbach & R. Greifender (Eds.), The experience of thinking: How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behaviour (pp. 33–49). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  34. Unkelbach, C. (2006). The learned interpretation of cognitive fluency. Psychological Science, 12, 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Unkelbach, C. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 219–230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Unkelbach, C., & Stahl, C. (2009). A multinomial modeling approach to dissociate different components of the truth effect. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 22–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wagner, A. R., & Rescorla, R. A. (1972). Inhibition in Pavlovian conditioning: Application of a theory. In R. A. Boakes & M. S. Halliday (Eds.), Inhibition and learning (pp. 301–336). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Whittlesea, B. W. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1235–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whittlesea, B. W., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 716–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189–217). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  41. Wurtz, P., Reber, R., & Zimmermann, T. D. (2008). The feeling of fluent perception: A single experience from multiple asynchronous sources. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 171–184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rita R. Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Teresa Garcia-Marques
    • 1
  • Joana Mello
    • 1
  1. 1.William James Center for ResearchISPA-Instituto UniversitárioLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Social Cognition Center CologneUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations